IO00672@maine.maine.edu (Sloth) (11/03/90)
From: IO00672@maine.maine.edu (Sloth) Iskander Taib writes: >The Japanese actually had a pretty healthy respect for >the B-17s. Saburo Sakai describes how they would re- >peatedly shoot at them, all the while dodging 50 cal >shells, and the things would just keep on flying. It >took them a long time before they discovered that a >head-on attack was devastatingly effective. Apparently >shells coming head-on would set off the bombs and one >burst was often enough. The Germans adopted the tactic of attacking head-on mainly because they discovered that's where the least amount of defensive fire can be brought to bear on the attacker. This is why models after the -F had twin .50s in a chin turret below the nose. Why would a frontal assault be more likely to set off the bombload than, say, an attack from the side or bottom of the bomber? --- Malcolm Fuller Email: MALCOLMF@MECAN1.BITNET Surveying Engineering Department IO00672@MAINE.MAINE.EDU University of Maine Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietam Servitutem
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (11/05/90)
From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) In article <1990Nov2.200555.26660@cbnews.att.com>, Sloth writes: *Iskander Taib writes: *>The Japanese actually had a pretty healthy respect for *>the B-17s.... It *>took them a long time before they discovered that a *>head-on attack was devastatingly effective. Apparently *>shells coming head-on would set off the bombs and one *>burst was often enough. *The Germans adopted the tactic of attacking head-on mainly because *they discovered that's where the least amount of defensive fire can *be brought to bear on the attacker. This is why models after the -F *had twin .50s in a chin turret below the nose. two other reasons: first of all, a head-on pass involved the least exposure because of the great closing speed, whereas a tail pass, involved maximum exposure do to the very slow closing speed. second of all, the most critical mission personal (navigator, bombadier, pilot, copilot) are all in the front, behind relatively flimsy transparent materials *Why would a frontal assault be more likely to set off the bombload *than, say, an attack from the side or bottom of the bomber? i don't buy this either; the bombs are located back between the wings. besides, there are various safety devices to help prevent explosions, and explosives of this type are designed to be fairly safe until intentionally detonated anyway. if you really truly wanted to knock one down, kill the forward crew members, or try to set an engine on fire (the film didn't entirely manage to get across how terrifying an engine fire was to a crew; most B-17s with serious engine fires didn't make it back.) richard -- richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York welty@lewis.crd.ge.com ...!crdgw1!lewis.crd.ge.com!welty ``We're in a road movie to Berlin, can't drive out the way we drove in'' -- They Might Be Giants
ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) (11/05/90)
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib) *>The Germans adopted the tactic of attacking head-on mainly because *>they discovered that's where the least amount of defensive fire can *>be brought to bear on the attacker. This is why models after the -F *>had twin .50s in a chin turret below the nose. *>Why would a frontal assault be more likely to set off the bombload *>than, say, an attack from the side or bottom of the bomber? I'm not sure. Perhaps it was due to less intervening metal in the way. Sakai's book (title: Samurai, put together by Martin Caidin and published by Ballantine) tells, in graphic detail, of the day his squadron tried this tactic for the first time. What was inter- esting was how long it took for them to figure it out. The Zeros were armed with 20mm cannon and 7.7 mm machine- guns, by the way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Iskandar Taib | The only thing worse than Peach ala Internet: NTAIB@AQUA.UCS.INDIANA.EDU | Frog is Frog ala Peach Bitnet: NTAIB@IUBACS !